Whitefield child abuse scandal latest: details of the new independent expert review revealed, and the key issues that remain unresolved

On 27 November 2024, the day after the BBC reported the full awful details of the scale and severity of the child abuse at Whitefield School between 2014 and 2017, LBWF Leader Grace Williams announced that ‘safeguarding partners will commission an independent expert to carry out a Local Children Safeguarding Practice Review (LCSPR) to ensure the lessons of this distressing case are learned’.

As this blog has pointed out, the parameters for a LCSPR are set out in law, but it is obviously of some importance to know exactly who has been appointed as the ‘independent expert’, and who is assisting them. 

Curiously, LBWF has made no comment about this in public, nor has it been discussed at LBWF’s Children and Families Scrutiny Committee, but a Freedom of Information Act inquiry has now ferreted out some of the details.

The chair appointed to lead the review is Donna Ohdedar, whose Linkedin page states under ‘Experience’ that she was Head of Law at Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council from June 2004 to February 2010, and after that has been Managing Director at Review Consulting Ltd. right up to the present.

Other profiles (including on the Review Consulting webpages) repeat that Ms. Ohdedar’s ‘last role’ was ‘Head of Law for a leading metropolitan authority’, and add that she ‘is involved in serious case reviews, in both childrens and adult safeguarding…[and] domestic homicide’, though no further details are specified.

As to the rest of the panel, they are Mary Jarrett, LBWF Corporate Director for Education; Sally Pattison, Detective Sergeant, Serious Review Crime Group Review Officer; and Cressida Zielinski, NHS North East London Integrated Care Board Designated Nurse for Safeguarding Children.

Clearly, these three professionals are all well qualified in their specialisms, but it is nevertheless reasonable to wonder about the wisdom of their appointment. 

According to LBWF, none have had ‘any prior involvement in previous investigations relating to Whitefield’, and this, it is argued, ensures their ‘objectivity’.

However, since it is yet to be established that local safeguarding authorities, and particularly LBWF and the police, are totally in the clear about events at the school, wouldn’t a better solution have been to bring in experts with no connection to Waltham Forest at all?

Turning to the key issues that remain unresolved, it is sensible to start with a brief recap of the scandal.  

It will be remembered that the initial trigger was an Ofsted inspection of Whitefield in January 2017 which found that:

(a) some pupils were being repeatedly locked in calming rooms for ‘long periods of time’;

(b) the calming rooms were ‘poorly ventilated’; ‘padded’; without natural light; and had doors that could only be opened from the outside; and

(c) record keeping about use of the calming rooms was poor, meaning that ‘parents and other professionals, including social workers…supporting children looked after by the local authority’ were ‘prevented’ from ‘discussing the appropriateness of the actions taken by the school’.

Subsequently, the calming rooms were quickly shut down, and Ofsted put in place a 20 point action plan to make sure there was no repeat.

That appeared to be that, but in May 2021 the BBC reported that an unnamed member of staff at the school had ‘discovered’ 44 memory sticks in a sealed box, and when these were examined, they were found to contain 500 hours of historic CCTV footage which showed, not just pupils being held in the calming rooms, but staff physically abusing them.

Another hiatus followed, and then in 2024, there were further alarming developments. 

The BBC had continued to probe, amongst other things obtaining ‘confidential school investigations written by an HR consultant it employed to review the footage’, and in two new reports now was able to show that what had happened in the calming rooms was much, much worse than previously imagined.

In short, there had been ‘appalling abuse and neglect affecting 39 pupils, many of whom are not able to speak’ (see links).

This sorry story is puzzling for a number of reasons, but two stand out.

One issue concerns the memory sticks. As described, these contain vital (and shocking) insights into the abuse. 

However, it remains unclear

(a)  why the memory sticks were suddenly ‘discovered’; 

(b) who preserved them and for what reason; and 

(c) whether the footage on them represents a sample of all that was recorded, or the totality for a defined period.

And that leads on to the related issue of how it could be possible that the existence of the CCTV cameras, with their capacity to preserve evidence, remained unremarked upon, in public at least, until the BBC’s May 2021 report. 

In particular, why was it that the Ofsted inspectors who visited Whitefield in January 2017 made no mention of the cameras at all?

It is worth underlining, to start with, that the Ofsted inspectors cannot be accused of skimping on their work.  As already indicated, they looked in detail at the calming rooms and their use; and, more generally, it’s been disclosed that the notes of their visit run to more than 150 pages (the notes themselves are still being withheld).

Moreover, on paper at least, Ofsted’s subsequent action plan is very thorough, and amongst other things, promises a ‘Review of the three “calming rooms” in order to ‘provide…the governing body…with enough information to allow them to reach an informed view about the use of locked calming rooms’, and it seems from the documents that this was in fact swiftly carried out.

Thus, laxity in any of its forms does not appear to be an explanation.

One other possibility is that the inspectors were in some way hoodwinked. For example, they may have seen the cameras, but been misinformed as to their purpose. Or perhaps, more straightforwardly, someone simply removed the cameras in advance of their visit.

Adding credence here is the fact that on other issues, the inspectors record that they were not necessarily told the truth, an illustration being the following paragraph from their report:

‘Teachers have different understandings and practices regarding the use of the…[calming] rooms. For example, a primary teacher told inspectors that younger pupils were never sent there and several teachers stated that older pupils were only placed in a room for short periods of time. The school’s records show that both these views are incorrect’.

Of course, Ofsted easily could provide clarification here, but has chosen not to, with the BBC reporting in 2021 ‘Ofsted declined to say if it had observed CCTV cameras during its inspection or asked to review footage’, and, more recently, those submitting Freedom of Information Act questions on this subject finding themselves rebuffed.

To conclude, there is much cynicism currently about reviews and inquiries, since too many seem to be formulaic, shallow, and almost obsessed with not apportioning blame.

Credible people with knowledge of the Whitefield scandal have already alleged a ‘whitewash’, and one is quoted by the BBC as saying of the school’s investigations: ‘“You’ve ended up with staff with no sanctions against them, no learning or awareness, no serious case review to look at what went wrong”’.

In this context, it is vital that Ms. Ohdedar’s team report the facts about the kind of issues discussed in the preceding paragraphs comprehensively, and without fear or favour.